Optics InfoBase > JOSA A > Executive Summary

Report from
Optics Express and Optics Letters Review Committees

Completed
January 2008

Observations

Recommendations

Full Report

Executive Summary

This report provides a strategic review of two journals published by the Optical Society of America, Optics Express and Optics Letters. The investigation described in this report is the work of two Committees (one for Optics Express and one for Optics Letters) and the OSA Publications Department.

This review was commissioned to investigate significant changes and trends in professional optics journal publications. A specific trend of concern was the dramatic success of Optics Express, an online rapid publication with an increasing impact factor (4.01 in 2006), increasing submission rate (270 per month), and decreasing acceptance rate (60%). This trend is in comparison with the high quality that Optics Letters has continuously maintained, along with a high impact factor (3.60 in 2006), good submission rate (190 per month), and low acceptance rate (47%). Specific information on impact factors, submission rates, rejection rates, etc. is contained in this report.

The Optics Express Strategic Review Committee and the Optics Letters Strategic Review Committee have developed recommendations for improving each journal. The activities associated with the investigations included a reader/author survey, survey analyses, topical editor questionnaire, editor interviews, and a behavioral psychologist's analysis of the survey results. Specific information and results of these activities are provided in this report.

The investigation provided two results worth covering in an executive summary. First, observations are provided as gleaned from the survey results, analysis, questionnaires, and interviews. Second, recommendations are provided for consideration by the OSA Publications Council and Board of Directors.

1. A sizable percentage of readers and authors may be unclear about the distinctive purposes for Optics Express and Optics Letters.
2. Most authors believe that their most important results should be published in Optics Letters
.
3. While Optics Letters has maintained a high level of quality for many years, the quality of Optics Express is perceived as improving in recent years.
4. Most Optics Express and Optics Letters readers are loyal to the journals and, on average, browse or read the journals either weekly or monthly.
5. A small percentage of authors choose other journals for publication because of the three-page Optics Letters restriction, but it is unclear whether new authors from non-OSA journals would convert to Optics Letters if the page limit were extended.
6. The primary reason authors publish in Optics Express (versus a conventional journal) is time to publication.
7. Perceived quality and brand loyalty are important considerations for authors and readers of Optics Letters.
8. ISI Impact Factor, Level of Peer Review, and Time to Publication are important but secondary considerations.
9. Copy editing and production quality are not as important to authors of either journal (this could become more important if quality falls below a threshold).
10. Most authors believe it is reasonable to require payment for page charges prior to publication in Optics Express.
11. There is an opportunity to involve more submitting authors as reviewers.
12. Filtering out papers with poor scientific quality and unclear arguments could help reviewers complete their reports more quickly.

1. Optics Express and Optics Letters should not be merged. They should continue to exist as distinct journals.
2. Editors (past and present) and OSA staff should be commended for the outstanding performance of both journals.
3. OSA should better articulate the characteristics that distinguish Optics Express and Optics Letters from each other.
4. Most authors and readers believe that Optics Express should become more selective in paper acceptance. Although authors and readers thought that Optics Express should strongly consider decreasing its acceptance ratio to less than 75% and should also consider limiting submissions to a ten-page length. The committee notes that the acceptance rate has already dropped to 60% for 2007.
5. Optics Letters should consider decreasing its acceptance ratio to less than 40% and, to some lesser degree, consider extending the page limit to four pages.
6. Optics Letters should be marketed within OSA and externally as OSA's premier journal.
7. Both Optics Express and Optics Letters should establish reasonable processes and goals to reduce and maintain a fast time to publication. If copy editing is a primary time component for Optics Letters, then some lesser quality copy editing process may be acceptable.
8. Impact Factor should be maintained or improved on to promote submissions and citations. However, it should be noted that IF is a result of other actions.
9. Optics Express should maintain the current level of copy editing to achieve fast time to publication.
10. Optics Express should add Deputy Editors to the editorial board, with the primary responsibility of helping the Editor in Chief manage the volume of new submissions and monitor the performance of associate editors.
11. In lieu of splintering Optics Express into multiple journals, consider applying a two-tier categorization scheme to the table of contents with a small number of topic groupings as the first tier.
12. Reduce the optional open access fee for Optics Letters to an amount closer to the Optics Express fee for short articles could attract more authors to pay for open access.
13. Authors need to be more involved as reviewers. Seek ways to achieve this.
14. Approximately 70% of all readers find articles from Optics Express and Optics Letters through web searches. Continue to implement "Search Engine Optimization" ("SEO"–techniques to ensure that the greatest numbers of search engines are indexing OSA journals at the top of "hit lists.").
15. Review topic coverage and editorial rosters. Expand coverage in "hot" areas like metamaterials.
16. There were a variety of responses indicating that OSA should improve the functionality and content of the reviewer database.
17. Similarly, more should be done to note the quality and responsiveness of reviewers, rewarding those who perform well.
18. Consider ways to improve the journals' search engine. Implement as appropriate.